Chicane accident liability, Expensive six weeks |
Chicane accident liability, Expensive six weeks |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Just a quick check to make sure I'm not going mad.
I managed to come off my bike here today, nice wrist fracture which will probably involve an operation on Monday to fix. Six weeks of freelance work cancelled. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6413784,-1....3312!8i6656 The whole thing was caught on CCTV so little dispute about what happened. I was travelling in the direction of the camera e.g had priority. Two vehicles approached the chicane from the other direction. Vehicle one decides to chance it and floor it through so I ease off. Car two hesitates so I commit to go through. At the last moment they decide to try and floor it through too. I slam on the brakes but too late and miss their offside wing by a few inches alongside the last driveway on the left by the wooden fence. The CCTV shows would 100% of collided with the car if I hadn't braked and come off. Car two driver says that there was no impact so I fell off my bike independently. Promptly scarpers before the police arrive. Will post CCTV when I get it. In a situation of either cancelling lots of work for six weeks (expensive) or getting taxis everywhere (expensive, I work on four different sites 30 miles apart plus would be significantly inhibited with a cast anyway). Would welcome thoughts as to whether insurance is likely to be simple or if they will also drag their heels due to no actual impact. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:18 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 20:40
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I’m wondering if it was the insured driver actually driving, all to often those keen to not talk about it have something they don’t want to talk about! Tada....... -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 20:52
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
I think at this stage I am just going to leave it to the police and instruct a solicitor. The PC dealing with the paperwork has been absolutely lovely and I get the impression they are cheesed off at
a) Him not waiting at the scene even though they were on blues and twos. b) Him subsequently driving past them at the scene in the opposite direction and not stopping. For those of you saying 50:50 out of interest if the roles were reversed and I had tucked in behind the van and got hit by a car which had priority would that still be 50:50? Remember the camera has a much better angle than me, I thought the car had waited and it was just the van that chanced it. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:04
Post
#23
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Remember the camera has a much better angle than me, I thought the car had waited and it was just the van that chanced it. You understandably have a quite different perspective, but from the video I'd say the van didn't chance it at all. The car may have, but so did you in steaming ahead on the assumption that there wasn't anything behind the van. None of which excuses the driving off aspect, obviously, but I don't think things are as clear-cut as you seem to think. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:44
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
As I said I think the video is a bit misleading to the speed. The section of road up to the chicane is 50 metres but it makes it look much further.
If you look at the white car before me it looks as if they are absolutely cracking along faster than me but those speed bumps are nasty and no way you could go over them quickly. My GPS has me travelling at just shy of 15mph on approach, which in a 30mph limit I don't think is unreasonable. Again, if it had been a car travelling at 15mph would that still be "steaming in"? This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:51 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:54
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Uninsured male presumably with insured female's permission to drive the car.... there's nice now isn't it.
World of pain for both with pee'd off cops looking to do someone.... assuming male driver is uninsured. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 22:08
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 838 Joined: 7 Jun 2010 From: planet earth Member No.: 38,027 |
Remember the camera has a much better angle than me, I thought the car had waited and it was just the van that chanced it. You understandably have a quite different perspective, but from the video I'd say the van didn't chance it at all. The car may have, but so did you in steaming ahead on the assumption that there wasn't anything behind the van. None of which excuses the driving off aspect, obviously, but I don't think things are as clear-cut as you seem to think. If you ride this area often and knew the chicane and raised area i wouldnt have been knocking on as much and been more cautious. Playing rock paper scissors on a push bike ! = car, bike ,tarmac! The fact the driver failed to comply makes me believe they have something to hide. This post has been edited by mashman36: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 22:09 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 23:21
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 604 Joined: 12 Oct 2009 Member No.: 32,760 |
As I said I think the video is a bit misleading to the speed. The section of road up to the chicane is 50 metres but it makes it look much further. it looks like he was past the give way line when you first appeared in view, so over 50 metres away. QUOTE For those of you saying 50:50 out of interest if the roles were reversed and I had tucked in behind the van and got hit by a car which had priority would that still be 50:50? probably. I would consider that enough time to take evasive action. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 00:27
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,816 Joined: 20 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,962 |
I'm not getting involved with the blame game. Let the Police prosecute all those they think resp for the RTC, which may include the OP.
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 07:03
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
In my experience when motorists have to perform a manoeuvre which involves putting themselves in front of approaching traffic they tend to follow another motorist through under the basis it’s ‘clear’ or at least the leading car has made approaching traffic stop/yield.
The key question is whether the driver had taken enough care before deciding to come through. I think there’s an argument they didn’t and careless driving seems to be the obvious charge. Indeed, a cyclist with an injury will make it harder for the driver... -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
Just spoken to police to check they had all the details. They said the car is only insured for a female. Male driver at the time. So they have put a marker on the car. Roads collisions team will decide what to do hopefully within five days as an injury accident. One would hope that they've also sent out a S172 to the registered keeper to get the driver's details. When the female RK gets that, she will hopefully realise that it's serious. Though she could end up being done for permitting to drive without insurance. We'll likely never know. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:28
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
To me, look ing at the video at 7 seconds you can see the white suv passing the chicane the van and car are waiting at the give way on the other side. They both begin transit through after the suv passes you are not in shot nor close to the controlled area (come into shot at 111 seconds and reach the controlled area at 14 seconds), both had right of way, the car was in and almost through the chicane before you arrived at the controlled area. i do not think the accident is as clear cut as you assume by ant means
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:31
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
both had right of way, Ignoring the fact that there is no concept of right of way that you infer? Does it also ignore the big white arrow for the cyclist (and small red for the oncoming?) -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:44
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
both had right of way, Ignoring the fact that there is no concept of right of way that you infer? Does it also ignore the big white arrow for the cyclist (and small red for the oncoming?) Of course there is a right of way. you can play semantics if you like, but everyone has a right of way over a public carriageway why is there need for the give way markings, and when does the cyclist/motorist ceed way to vehicles approaching and when can a vehicle approaching the 611A sign claim priority. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:55
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Well as promised video of crash. https://youtu.be/0lQ3pw9V3Ak The bit I remember is slamming on the brakes for the van, then skidding when I realise the car is coming through too. It looks like I very almost stopped in time. The grey car later comes back in the other direction presumably for a quick look afterwards. The CCTV owners have sent the whole lot to the police. Excellent quality CCTV and must have a good mic as well to pick up your voice . both had right of way, Ignoring the fact that there is no concept of right of way that you infer? Does it also ignore the big white arrow for the cyclist (and small red for the oncoming?) Of course there is a right of way. you can play semantics if you like, but everyone has a right of way over a public carriageway why is there need for the give way markings, and when does the cyclist/motorist ceed way to vehicles approaching and when can a vehicle approaching the 611A sign claim priority. Hear Hear....dunno why folk keep saying there is "no right of way" and technically they might be correct but we all know what "right of way" means . |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 12:20
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
PMB is claiming that you can have right of way by virtue of being part way through a chicane though. I'm not quite sure how that fits in with the "give way to oncoming vehicles" instruction though, especially a pushbike travelling at well under the speed limit.
Anyway it is with a solicitor now who says easy win and will do no win, no fee. They are very very happy with the CCTV footage. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:15
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
PMB is claiming that you can have right of way by virtue of being part way through a chicane though. I'm not quite sure how that fits in with the "give way to oncoming vehicles" instruction though, especially a pushbike travelling at well under the speed limit. Anyway it is with a solicitor now who says easy win and will do no win, no fee. They are very very happy with the CCTV footage. If i was the car driver. i would of course have stopped (even if only to give you a kick) and would be insured, I too would be very happy with the video. We see different things, and its not up to me to apportion fault. hope you recovery soon and what will be will be -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:31
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
both had right of way, Ignoring the fact that there is no concept of right of way that you infer? Does it also ignore the big white arrow for the cyclist (and small red for the oncoming?) Of course there is a right of way. you can play semantics if you like, but everyone has a right of way over a public carriageway . Its you playing semantics, your meaning was clear and wrong. If anyone had priority it was the cyclist by dint of the arrows and the fact the traffic coming the other way has a (almost certainly) crossed a give way line. Hear Hear....dunno why folk keep saying there is "no right of way" and technically they might be correct but we all know what "right of way" means . PMB's clear intent was he thought the cars had 'priority', which is why I added what he was infering, but they did not they had a give way. I knew what I was saying, PMB did not. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:33 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:38
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
both had right of way, Ignoring the fact that there is no concept of right of way that you infer? Does it also ignore the big white arrow for the cyclist (and small red for the oncoming?) Of course there is a right of way. you can play semantics if you like, but everyone has a right of way over a public carriageway . Its you playing semantics, your meaning was clear and wrong. If anyone had priority it was the cyclist by dint of the arrows and the fact the traffic coming the other way has a (almost certainly) crossed a give way line. Hear Hear....dunno why folk keep saying there is "no right of way" and technically they might be correct but we all know what "right of way" means . PMB's clear intent was he thought the cars had 'priority', which is why I added what he was infering, but they did not they had a give way. I knew what I was saying, PMB did not. Eh when does the sign 611A apply some time when you approach or when you reach it. My contention is that it is when you reach it, and that it does not give priority to vehicles already in the zone of restriction. I don't know of any high court cases but you can check LT register, there are cases there that have been adjudicated, and found on that point Salters hill is a location that springs to mind This one as an example 2170541880 This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice for failing to give way to oncoming vehicles at Salter’s Hill. The locus of the alleged contravention is familiar to the Tribunal. In June of this year I spent some time considering the road traffic layout and gave my view on the difficulties presented by PCNs arising from this location in my judgment in Atori v Lambeth 2170334285. In that judgment and again today, I have had cause to consider the decision of the Tribunal in Haggis v Lambeth 216014882A. Rather unusually in the present case, the Local Authority have not produced submissions to the Tribunal. I have therefore taken their case to be that which they have set out in their notice of rejection, this states, inter alia: The CCTV footage shows the vehicle behind from the give way lines proceeding without any attempt in stopping, which in turn hindered the traffic coming in the opposite direction that have the right of way. I am not helped by the lack of particularisation. There would appear to be one of two cars which it is said that the Appellant has failed to give way to. The first car is not hindered at all and whilst I accept that perhaps the car in front of the Appellant should have given way, I am not clear that the Appellant needed to. With regard to the second vehicle, this did slow down as the Appellant was coming along the carriageway. However, again, I return to the same comment I made in Atori: In my view, I am not entirely clear at which point a vehicle is said to be oncoming, is it when he turns from Gipsy Road to Salters Hill? This seems unlikely. Is it when he reaches a point just before the road narrows? This seems more likely, but when? It must be that each case turns on its own facts. The Local Authority (and indeed, this Tribunal) will need to be satisfied that when a vehicle reaches the give way line, it is obliged to give way to another vehicle. Again, returning to the present case, I am not satisfied the Appellant failed to give way. It follows that I am not satisfied to the civil standard of proof that the contravention occurred. This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:42 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:48
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The point is that the car did not give way as it passed the give way sign and markings, there was another vehicle approaching that it failed to give way to and they met in the pinch point, if the car didn't have to give way, what was the point of the signs and markings?
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 13:55
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The point is that the car did not give way as it passed the give way sign and markings, there was another vehicle approaching that it failed to give way to and they met in the pinch point, if the car didn't have to give way, what was the point of the signs and markings? You sound like a council parking officer -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:24 |